Last Updated: August 22 2026
If a person allows another person without proper training to operate equipment and an accident occurs, can both the person that allowed the use and the user be sued?
Yes, in Ontario you can sometimes sue both the person who allowed access (the entruster) and the person who caused the injury (the entrustee) under negligent entrustment if the owner or controller unreasonably permitted use of a dangerous object by an unqualified, inexperienced, or reckless user, creating an appreciable risk of harm; in Persaud v. Bratanov, 2012 ONSC 5232, the court describes two main components: the entruster’s negligent entrustment and the entrustee’s negligence as the proximate cause. In Tse v. Binns, 2014 ONSC 2091, an adult was found to share liability where he allowed his child to purchase and use dangerous fireworks without proper warnings and education. If you’re dealing with injuries or property damage after an unsafe handoff, SFG Paralegal Services LLP can help you understand likely defendants and what facts matter for your claim; call (888) 398-0121 for a quick Ontario paralegal case review.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Can a Parent Be Sued For Allowing a Child and Friend to Use a Snowmobile or Other Motorized Vehicle If Injuries Result?
Negligent Entrustment Involves the Unreasonable Providing of An Object, Such As An Automobile, Boat, Equipment, Gun, or Some Other Potentially Dangerous Thing, to a User That Is Unqualified or Untrained to Use the Object and Resulting In Harm to Another...
Note: Please contact SFG Paralegal Services LLP by phone at: (888) 398-0121 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
Understanding Negligent Entrustment Principles Involving Unreasonable Provision of Access to Dangerous Objects
In the circumstances where a person who owns, possesses, or controls, a potentially dangerous object, such a person may be held legally liable for the tort of negligent entrustment where such a person unreasonably permits another person to use or operate the potentially dangerous object and an incident occurs resulting in harm to a third party person.
The Law
The tort of negligent entrustment was well explained in the case of Persaud v. Bratanov, et al, 2012 ONSC 5232, wherein it was said:
[41] Allegations of negligent entrustment have two broad components, namely: (1) proof that the entruster was negligent in entrusting what later became the instrumentality of the damages to the entrustee; and (2) proof that the entrustee was negligent in his or her use of the instrumentality in causing the damages suffered by the plaintiff. See: Unger v. Unger (2003), 2003 CanLII 57446 (ON CA), 68 O.R. (3d) 257 (C.A.) at para. 25-27; Perkull v. Gilbert, 1993 CanLII 583 (BC SC), [1993] B.C.J. No. 1078 (S.C.) at para. 14. The rationale is that when someone supplies a chattel to another, whom the supplier knows or has reason to know is likely, as a result of his or her youth, inexperience or recklessness, to use the chattel in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of harm to others, that supplier should be liable for the harm caused by the negligence of the person entrusted with the chattel. See: Schulz v. Leeside Developments Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1976 (BC CA), [1978] B.C.J. No. 1319 (C.A.) at para. 21.
[42] Cases of negligent entrustment usually arise, as in this case, out of the entrustment of an automobile. In such cases, the judicial authorities suggest that all of the following five elements must be established for liability:
(1) An entrustment of the chattel by its owner to the entrustee;
(2) The entrustee was incompetent, inexperienced or reckless;
(3) The entruster knew or ought to have known of the entrustee’s condition or proclivities;
(4) The entrustment created an appreciable risk of harm to the plaintiff and a coincident relational duty of care on the part of the defendant/entruster; and
(5) The entrustee’s negligence was the proximate or legal cause of the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
As stated in the Persaud case, negligent entrustment cases usually involve an automobile or another type of dangerous machinery such as a snowmobile (see: Perkull v. Gilbert, 1993 CanLII 583, School Division of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer et al., 1970 CanLII 882, a boat (see: Schulz v. Leeside Developments Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1976; (liability unfound), a farm implement, a gun, a firework, among other things, being entrusted to an underage or an unqualified operator.
It takes very little forethought to recognize and appreciate that fireworks, being explosive objects, present a significant risk of causing injury or causing damage; and accordingly, the law of negligent entrustment provides that a parent who allows a child to set off fireworks or provides a child with access to fireworks may be deemed liable if improper use of the fireworks causes injuries or damage to another person. This situation arose in the case of Tse v. Binns, 2014 ONSC 2091, wherein it was said:
[12] The liability of Joel Binns would be hard to contest. Based on the available evidence and the Statement of Claim, he caused the lit firecracker to strike Eugene Tse in the left eye. The only allegation, in the Statement of Claim, directed at Michael Binns is that he allowed his son to purchase fireworks, when he knew this was dangerous and failed to provide his son with proper warnings and education on how to safely and properly use them. In the absence of any evidence reflecting on Joel Binns, his relationship with his father, the communication between them and anyone suggesting that Michael Binns did not owe a duty of care to Eugene Tse, I am obliged to and do accept that Michael Binns shares in the liability of his son in respect of the injuries suffered by Eugene Tse.
Summary Comment
The tort of negligent entrustment involves liability upon an owner, or person in control, of a dangerous object that arises from the unreasonable permission granting use or operation of the dangerous object to an underage, unqualified, or otherwise irresponsible, person.
NOTE: A substantial array of online searches for “lawyers in my vicinity” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicates an urgent requirement for competent legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, and they possess the authority to represent clients in specified litigation concerns. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that responsibility. SFG Paralegal Services LLP provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
